The Top Athletes Looking for an Edge and the Scientists Trying to Stop Them
Behind the scenes there will be a high-tech, high-stakes competition between Olympic athletes who use banned substances and drug testers out to catch them
- By Christie Aschwanden
- Photographs by Dan Winters
- Smithsonian magazine, July-August 2012, Subscribe
(Page 4 of 4)
A growing challenge, Howman says, is organized crime. “The underworld is substantially involved in providing and distributing these substances—the profits are extraordinary. With an investment of $100, you can make $1,000 or maybe $100,000. WADA has to make sure that stops.” The testing group recently hired a chief investigations officer to gather intelligence and collaborate with law enforcement agencies. “There have been doping control officers bribed, there have been people working in labs bribed. It’s happening and we need to stop it,” Howman says.
And then there’s the entourage problem. Howman estimates that sports is worth $800 billion annually, and athletes are surrounded and influenced by coaches, trainers, agents and lawyers who stand to profit. Tygart says athletes have been talked out of confessing to illicit drug use by lawyers who would earn more in a lengthy litigation process. “Those within the system who are preying on our athletes need to be held accountable, and we’ll do everything in our power to kick those people out of sport,” Tygart says.
Track standout Michelle Collins was shocked the first time that someone in her inner circle offered her THG, a steroid designed to evade drug tests. The Olympic sprinter and former world champion was told the drug would make her stronger and speed recovery after training. “I was never actually told what it was,” says Collins, who was caught in the Balco scandal for using THG and EPO. She first encountered drugs while making the leap from collegiate to professional competition, an especially vulnerable period in an athlete’s career. “That’s where a lot of athletes get scooped up and grabbed by coaches promising to take them to the next level,” says Collins. “There’s a lot of brainwashing that goes on.” Athletes are convinced that they must dope to be competitive, she says. “I definitely believed that.”
Likewise, Tyler Hamilton, in an interview with CBS News’ “60 Minutes,” described receiving his package of performance-enhancing drugs for the first time as a sort of rite of passage, an invitation to the big time.
“Good people make mistakes,” Tygart says, and mentions Collins, who, after initial denials, admitted to doping. Tygart recalls seeing her after her confession. “It was a transformation. Her whole posture and personality was completely changed. It was amazing.” Collins left sports and works as a licensed massage therapist with her own practice near Dallas. Now “very content,” she regrets taking dope. “If I could go back in time, I would say no,” she told me. “I was already talented. I’d made an Olympic team without drugs. I didn’t really need to go there.”
When the Olympics begin this summer, all eyes will focus on the medal counts and podium ceremonies. While those who fall short of a medal may comfort themselves in having fought a good fight, the truth is, winning still matters. In the world of sports, nothing commands greater regard than an Olympic gold medal. Yet the question remains, at what cost? Will that shiny gold medal represent integrity and sportsmanship, or a value system that puts winning ahead of everything else? This is a question that the athletes themselves must answer.
I was skeptical when DeeDee Trotter first told me about her Test Me, I’m Clean! pledge, but I’ve chosen to trust her. I believe Trotter, because I believe that authenticity still exists in sports. (Editor's note: Trotter won the bronze medal in the 400-meter race at the London Olympics, wearing her "Test Me, I'm Clean" wristband) For every medal-stealing fraud like Tyler Hamilton or Marion Jones, there are other athletes who choose to do the right thing. The Olympics still provide a stage for human excellence. It’s not too late to save sports. But it will take athletes like Trotter standing up to the doping culture. The fight against doping is nothing less than a culture war, one that can be won only from within.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (10)
It is about time we have a better discussion on this! See also https://theconversation.edu.au/dopers-and-the-rest-a-case-for-splitting-professional-cycling-10177 for similar debate.
Posted by Doper Global on October 28,2012 | 09:16 PM
Thanks for the interesting article. You did not mention one of the most explosive new areas of sports medicine/doping: stem cells. Look for this to be a huge issue in coming years and in the next Olympics. For more on this see here where I discuss it in depth: http://tinyurl.com/chenmdc Paul Knoepfler Associate Professor UC Davis
Posted by Paul Knoepfler on October 19,2012 | 05:20 PM
The whole process is a mystery to me. I find it difficult and hypocritical to control these performance enhancing techniques without regarding all performance enhancing techniques. What is the line, why are some allowed and others not? For example, "carb-packing" before a game is performance enhancing. Athletes on the sideline breathing oxygen from a cylinder is performance enhancing. Vitamins, eating bananas for extra potassium, the list is endless. Why allow one and not another? I'm not saying I'm for it or against it, I'm saying what arbitrary line says one is OK and the other isn't. It isn't safety. Many perfectly legal forms of preparation can hurt an athlete when it allows them to exceed the limitations of their body artificially, like potassium for cramps. It appears there is an artificial and largely arbitrary line being drawn for no other reason than today's personal choice. Second question, this business about keeping samples for eight years; I can't bring this to bear on the rest of the uncivilized world, but in the USA we have a constitution that prevents something called "double jeopardy" to prevent exactly this sort of harassment. Guilty people in all sorts of crimes have been let go just because a police officer doesn't read someone their rights under the Miranda ruling, murderers who we know are guilty. How is it guys like Lance Armstrong can be tested, tested, tested and tested again, adjudicated and innocent and free of drugs and then one day someone finally detects something and the jury changes their mind (yes, I realize this is civil and may turn to tort and nor criminal law, but that doesn't change the principal). Once there is an adjudication, why are these people allowed to be continuously persecuted?
Posted by Praising Jesus on October 13,2012 | 09:08 AM
Hi Christie, I really enjoyed reading your beautifully-written and informative article "The Top Athletes Looking for an Edge and the Scientists Trying to Stop Them" at the Smithsonian's website. I have a question, though. You write "For most of Olympic history, using drugs wasn’t considered cheating... The original intent of anti-doping rules was to prevent athletes from dropping dead of overdoses, but over the years the rules have come to focus just as intently on protecting the integrity of the Games." Where is your concept of "integrity" coming from here? If there is a several thousand year history of athletes seeking performance enhancement why call this kind of behavior out as immoral or unethical. To be clear, I am not saying that doping is moral or ethical, I just want the argument against doping spelled out. As it stands, a commercially successful sproting committee has decided that they can run a business by running a war on performance enhancing drugs, so is doping unethical because it suits a particular business model? Or is there a deeper argument to be made? If I play devil's advocate here, why shouldn't performance enhancing athletic *practice* be called unethical? After all, those who train more pre-event reap an unfair advantage over those who train less, or not at all. So if that's absurd (and it is), why make the same argument for athletes? For example, why shouldn't performance enhancing drugs which do not threaten the health of the athlete be available for all? Can you recommend anyone who has written on the ethics of the doping question? Best!
Posted by Alexis on August 24,2012 | 04:58 PM
It is time to stop testing in sports. The amount of time and money spent on testing and the silly rescinding of records has become too much. It has gotten to the point where people get kicked out of the Olympics for taking allergy meds. If people want to take steroids or whatever, let them. If everyone is doping then the advantage goes away. If the side effects aren't worth it then don't compete. Maybe we need two tracks in sports, one for people who choose to be tightly monitored and one for those who freely admit to using drugs or doping.
Posted by Eric on August 24,2012 | 01:06 PM
This is ridiculous, drugging's been going on for WAY too long
Posted by Josh on August 7,2012 | 11:15 PM
Her gripe is agaist dirty atheletes and people who make assumption based on a group of people. Are all skinny people anorexic? She has a right to defend her honor. Go to her website www.testmeimclean.org and find out how she really feels and what her orinization is all about. DeeDee is a wonderful person and a great athlete.
Posted by Deb on July 13,2012 | 05:09 PM
It's interesting and unfortunate that the sports that use the most stringent testing protocols have the biggest perceived drug problems. The major professional sports leagues use much laxer testing and have a much higher financial rewards associated with success; there is far, far more cheating in professional football than in any Olympic sport, but far, far fewer articles about the problem.
Posted by Ben Talsma on July 13,2012 | 07:56 AM
It is probably easier to be a clean athlete in some sports - it is likely that not all of them have a big doping culture. Maybe that is the case in Trotter's sport. However in cycling, especially the Tour de France, you would not even be in the running to win without PEDs. The irony and, perhaps, injustice of it is that If Lance Armstrong is stripped of his Tour wins, the first place honour will most likely be given to another athlete who doped. In order to award a clean athlete on the Tour, I wonder how far back down the list you would have to go? Back to fifth place? Tenth place? Is is fair to make life so difficult for the athletes when the whole culture of the sport is corrupt, and the athletes' coaches, doctors and senior team mates are all pushing drugs?
Posted by Jennifer Dales on July 13,2012 | 07:30 AM
Trotter's gripe should be directed at the many, many athletes who DO use performance enhancing drugs, not the public that recognizes this sad fact.
Posted by Hominid on July 6,2012 | 09:17 AM